Frances Perkins (1880 - 1965)

Frances Perkins, pictured here in an undated photo, was born on this day in 1880. Perkins was the first woman to hold a cabinet level position in the United States government. She was Secretary of Labor under F.D.R; in that post she was instrumental in enacting in Social Security and the Fair Labor Standards Act which established the first federal minimum wage law as well as limits on the length of the working week.

In the midst of the ongoing onslaught by Republicans (and GOP-wannabe types like Andrew Cuomo) on labor unions it is important to remember that progressives have gained support from unions and that that support translated into bedrock social legislation. You can link to the Frances Perkins Center in Maine here.

Vacancy

Martin Luther King’s room at the Lorraine Hotel hours after he was shot,
Memphis, Tennessee (April 4, 1968). Photograph © Steve Schapiro.

At the risk of belaboring a point I have been making here for what now has turned into years, Martin Luther King, Jr. who was assassinated on this day in 1968, was in Memphis in solidarity with sanitation workers, who were striking the city not just for decent pay and working conditions but for recognition of their right to form a union. In light of the concerted, ongoing campaign by Republicans to subvert unions, it surely is plausible to wonder how far we remain from the promised land of which King spoke the night before he was shot. King did not "lead" the Memphis strike; indeed, he struggled to keep pace with the radicalism and resolve of the strikers. Who might now aspire to that role?

Weekend Reading Assignment

Boy & Dog in a Johnnypump (detail), 1982 © Jean Michel Basquiet.

In the past couple of weeks, two essays by Rebecca Solnit have appeared at The Nation; one on radicalism and revolution is here and one extending her work on disaster and politics to the recent events in Japan is here.

And in the April issue of Harper's John Berger has offered an appreciation of Jean-Michel Basquiat. Unfortunately, if understandably, Harper's maintains a pretty much impermeable pay-wall. Berger counsels perseverance when approaching the artist. His first sentence: "Before you get to him,you have to walk through a lot of hot air, because he became a local and then a global legend, and you have to ignore the screeches of the vultures who deal his work." I recommend that you persevere and track down a copy of the magazine.

Finally, I recommend this piece from The Washington Post a few weeks back on the issues underlying the Republican assault on unions. I neglected to mention it at the time. It is by two political scientists Paul Pierson and Jacob Hacker who are smart and insightful on American politics and power generally.

Asked & Answered, Or What I Learned in History Class

Reading around on some photo-related blogs today, I realized that two apparently different questions prompt pretty much the same answer.

Q: What are unions good for (besides, weekends, vacations, minimum wage and working hours standards, of course)?
A: They help keep companies from killing employees (for the historically challenged - look here).

Q: What is photojournalism good for?
A: It helps keep companies from killing employees (same episode, slightly different lesson).

As I've pointed out here before, while critics like Sontag complain that photography has grown up hand-in-hand with war, it has grown up hand-in-hand with democracy too. Sometimes it is a good thing to remind ourselves of that.

The Poor Oppressed Business Community!

These are the panels of a mural by Judy Taylor that, since 2008, has adorned the building housing the Maine State Department of Labor. According to news reports the Governor - Republican Paul LePage - has ordered the mural removed because it allegedly makes the Department inhospitable to businesses. He rationalizes his order by reference to a set of complaints (anonymous, as far as I can tell) from those suffering the discomfort. The mural was funded by the state Arts Council, the artist was selected via a competitive process, and the panels depict workers, their organizations, and the history of labor conflicts (including - gasp! - strikes!) in the State. This mural hardly is in-your-face agitprop. After all it simply celebrates freedom of association.

The governor also has ordered a set of rooms in the Department that currently are named after labor and political leaders be re-labeled. (As if the business elites would be quaking at the memory of Frances Perkins!) His putative aim is "neutrality" that will make the business community comfortable enough to invest in Maine. And here I thought businessmen were oh so robust and vigorous. How could a simple mural be so intimidating?
_________
P.S.: All this really raises a question in my mind. If the Republicans don't like welfare recipients because they don't work, and they don't like working people because they might organize to stick up for themselves in the face of authoritarian business structures (and firms are indeed authoritarian), just who is it that Republicans like?

P.S.2: And here is a report from the newspaper of record.

P.S.3: Update on subsequent events here and the resulting court filing here.

On Wisconsin

Here is the report from The New York Times on the conclusion to the union busting campaign in Wisconsin. The upshot is that the Republicans confirmed that this is not at all about budget matters - they stripped all those out of the bill by which they eliminated worker rights to collective bargaining - and just went straight for the throats of public sector employees. No quorum, no opposition, no floor debate, none of that pesky democratic (small d) apparatus. This is the sort of thing that conservatives get all worked up about when it happens elsewhere.

For Democratic and Independent voters the lesson should be crystal clear - Republicans do not play well with others. In fact they prefer not to play with others at all. They have a reactionary agenda aimed at working people and the poor. And they will cram that agenda through regardless of proprieties or even legalities. If you think bi-partisanship is important it is a mistake to ever support any Republican. Instead of voting for civility (and engaging in the fantasy that the GOP cares a whit about that) you should vote to protect yourself and others from the predations of the right.

I am certain that all the Tea Party types who so value liberty and oppose tyranny will be out in the street protesting?

What's At Stake ... Political Power

From this defense of unions by Jacob Hacker & Paul Pierson at The Washington Post:

“The battle between Republicans and labor unions in Ohio, Wisconsin and other states is ostensibly about public workers' pay, benefits and bargaining rights. What is really at stake, however, isn't labor's income. It's labor's influence - not just in the American workplace but in American politics.

Critics of unions cast them as exclusive clubs for which the rest of Americans pay the dues. Wisconsin's GOP governor, Scott Walker, likes to say that unions are the "haves" and everyone else the "have-nots." And it's certainly true that unions aggressively pursue their own interests - sometimes to others' detriment. When asked in the early 20th century what the American Federation of Labor wanted, the union's gruff head, Samuel Gompers, famously replied, 'More.'

But unions play another role, too - one more like that of civic groups than private associations. Although they want "more" for their members, they also want to make good middle-class jobs the norm. And the most important way they pursue this larger goal isn't by demanding concessions at the bargaining table, but by operating as a counterweight to the demands of corporations and Wall Street in the corridors of power. That is precisely why opponents of organized labor are seizing upon state fiscal troubles to try to destroy its remaining clout.”

Excuse Me Dr. Barro, Your Ideology Is Showing

Economist Robert Barro has published this anti-union Op-Ed in The Wall Street Journal today. Pretty predictably, he wants to blame the fiscal crisis in the states on unions. Is there actual empirical evidence that, as Barro puts it, " the structure of strong public-employee unions . . . helped to create the unsustainable fiscal situation."* It would be nice to see it. The reason why Barro presents none is that, as far as I know, there is none to present. Even an economist should be able to do better than that.

Barro does present some evidence that right-to-work laws promote economic development. There is no real surprise that right to work states attract more robust corporate activity than more union friendly states. Of course they do. Corporate investment go where they don't face any countervailing power. And what about relative wages and benefits in those states? I don't know the empirics in any detail, but I am wagering that there are pretty impressive distributive consequences of disallowing unions. (Have a look at this report from CNN for some initial warrant on that score.) Surely Dr. Barro wouldn't want to discount the massive inequalities that untrammeled corporate power (and markets are meant to be power free zones, no?) generate!

As a theoretical matter Barro presses the claim that "collective bargaining on a broad scale is more similar to an antitrust violation than to a civil liberty." Of course that requires that we ignore the power asymmetries that exist in virtually any labor negotiation between an employer and individual employees. The historical corollary of this theoretical complaint is that Barro seems to want us to head directly back to the late 19th Century, to a time when the state imposed atomization on the labor market and thereby enhanced the power of employers. In other words, Barro doesn't like the way democratic politics has reshaped labor markets by sanctioning collective bargaining. After all, the Wagner Act (1935) cleared Congress and was signed by Roosevelt.

In this essay Barro displays a problem to which economists are quite susceptible: they too readily allow their ideology - usually some facile version of libertarianism - to impede their analysis. We know in general terms what markets (there is no such thing as "the market" except in the world of right leaning ideology) require to work effectively. We know too that allowing collective action can offset biases that prevent effective functioning of markets in atomized settings. There are lots and lots of efficient market outcomes. There is no reason why we ought to opt for the most asymmetrical and unequal of those on offer. At least nothing Barro says here suggests that we should.
__________
* Since he is preoccupied with Wisconsin, is there any evidence that the public employee pension system is in trouble there? Barro implies that it is, but offers not a shred of evidence.

Wake Up Democrats! American Workers are Under Assault by Republicans

It is no surprise that Republicans across the country have taken aim on unions and done so in a concerted campaign. Nor is it a surprise that they have done so hypocritically, rationalizing their political agenda in terms of the need to address fiscal crisis in the states. What is also unsurprising - and no less disturbing - is that neither the unions nor the Democrats seem to have had a clue that this attack was in the offing. They were too busy hoping for the emergence of civil, bi-partisan politics. Is there a lesson here?

As I drove in this morning there were two useful segments on npr: the first confirmed the predictable, namely that the Obama administration is steering clear of controversy and hoping for a nice bi-partisan resolution to the labor conflicts in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio ... the second was an interview with a law professor who studies public sector unions and, guess what, they are not nearly the drag on the public budget or boon to selfish workers that the Republicans portray them as being. Surprised?

Unions ... in Egypt and Wisconsin

What do Cairo and Madison, Wisconsin have in common? There is a simply terrific column by Harold Meyerson in The Washington Post today that draws the parallels. (In case you are not paying much attention to the GOP assault on unions - what's new, right? - here is an update on the Wisconsin situation.)

Governor Cumo, MLK Jr,. & the Unions

More than 5,000 men lined up prior to the March 28, 1968 march
led by Martin Luther King during the sanitation workers' strike.
(Copyright Ernest C. Withers Trust.)

Every year on this day (and on some other days as well) I try to post something that might counteract the sanitized remembrances of Martin Luther King, Jr. we find in the mainstream press. At a time when our own "liberal" governor here in New York has drawn a gun-sight (Sarah-style) on the backs of public sector union members, it is important to recall that King died in Memphis supporting the rights of Sanitation Workers (yes public employees) to unionize. On the off chance that Mr. Cuomo would like to brush up on his history, he might start here.

Why I Won't Vote for Andrew Cuomo

Yesterday, The New York Times ran this story about our governor-elect Andrew Cuomo. It may seem odd to refer to Cuomo as governor-elect given that the election has yet to be held. But he is just another in a string of dynastic pretenders to political office around the country. The names are familiar - Kennedy, Clinton, Bush, Romney, Brown, and so forth. (The stink of oligarchy by itself is nearly a sufficient reason to vote against Cuomo.) And given that the New York State Republicans have nominated a complete idiot and political incompetent to oppose Cuomo, the chances of him not ascending to the Statehouse are approximately zero.

Now, Cuomo is a Democrat. He is rightly concerned that state government in New York is a mess. But look at who he blames and how he hopes to remedy the situation. According to The Times, Cuomo: "will mount a presidential-style permanent political campaign to counter the well-financed labor unions he believes have bullied previous governors and lawmakers into making bad decisions. He will seek to transform the state’s weak business lobby into a more formidable ally, believing that corporate leaders in New York have virtually surrendered the field to big labor." Are you kidding? First of all his diagnosis is, at best, tendentious. Like our local 800 pound gorilla Tom Golisano (corporate honcho, charitable benefactor and all around windbag), who has run for governor himself as an independent, Cuomo wants to blame everything on the unions. Second, he wants to invite in corporate interests as a remedy. This is a Democrat? Unfortunately, yes.

Let's not pretend that the public sector unions in New York are flawless. They surely are not. But if Cuomo wants to tackle the corruption and dysfunction in Albany he might try a more direct route - propose and push through institutional reform. Change the rules of the legislative process that make the state government about as undemocratic a governmental entity as you will find in the United States. According to this 2004 report from the Brennan Center at NYU Law School, the structure of state government is more or less wholly anti-democratic. (Nothing much has changed since the report was issued.) Consider some examples. The Speaker of the House and the Leader of the Senate exercise more or less dictatorial powers, including over the legislative calendar and the staffing budgets of individual lawmakers. The committee structure, such as it is, does nothing to promote examination of and debate over legislative proposals. There is no operative system of conference committees to resolve disagreements between the two chambers. The problem with state government, in other words, starts at home, with a constitutional structure that actively invites corruption and gridlock. And I am willing to bet that that structure was not put in place by public sector unions. It surely pre-dates their ascendancy. The venality and corruption in Albany are political in the narrowest possible sense. I also am willing to bet - and the article in The Times supports this suspicion - that Cuomo will do nothing to address the institutional problems of state government.

Since Cuomo is a sure winner in the election, I plan to vote for the Green Party candidate, Howie Hawkins. Further down the ballot I'll vote my usual Working Families Party line.

Happy Labor Day ~ Remember Striking Motts Workers

The Lord Provides.
Lithograph ~ Jacob Burck, 1934.

The problem, of course, is that he doesn't. Burck (1907-1982) captured the irony. And on this Labor Day it is important to remember that workers at a local Mott's plant in nearby Williamson, NY are still out on strike. I posted on their struggle here some time ago. Not only does our economic situation resemble the 1930s, the attitude and actions of employers have not changed since then. So, no romantic images of 'labor,' just a reminder of why workers need unions to protect themselves from domination by their bosses.

Why Glenn Beck is Right (Meaning Correct, Not Just Reactionary)

Glenn Beck speaks at his 'Restoring Honor' rally in front of
the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, Saturday, Aug. 28, 2010
(Image © AP Photo/Alex Brandon).

I never thought I'd say it, but here goes. Glenn Beck is right! Reviving the message of Martin Luther King , Jr. would indeed go considerable distance toward restoring honor to America.

Unfortunately, Beck fails to grasp the implications of his call; MLK Jr.'s message entails radical politics of just the sort that he and his reactionary followers would find appalling. After all, King preached a message of progressive political-economic reform. For instance, he demanded a universal guaranteed income to directly address the widespread poverty that plagued the U.S. in the 1960s and continues to do so today. He also spoke and acted in solidarity with striking workers - indeed, he was shot in Memphis where he had traveled to support the demands of sanitation workers seeking to exercise their right to form a union. King also spoke eloquently against American military aggression in Viet Nam; his message on that score translates more or less seamlessly to our current disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, let the Merry Becksters re-orient their politics to accommodate King's message. We'd all be much better off.

The fact that those on the left are so pre-occupied with the resonance of King's "I Have a Dream" speech, suggests that they too ought to look more closely at Dr. King's message. He did not stand for freedom and civil rights in the abstract, but for freedom deeply embedded in circumstances of solidarity and justice and peace and equality.

Solidarity . . . With Striking Mott's Workers

I have, on repeated occasions, posted about the dire economic circumstances across Western NY (e.g., here); I've also posted repeatedly on the beneficial consequences of unions (e.g., here). This current post arise at the intersection of those two concerns. In nearby Williamson, New York there is a Mott's processing plant. You know, apple sauce and so on. Mott's is owned by Dr. Pepper Snapple, a Texas based, financially healthy company. The Mott's plant is unionized - Local 220 of the United Food and Commercial Workers - and the workers are out on strike in the face of rapacious demands on the part of the company. Despite its profitability and the steadily increasing compensation of management, the company is asking the workers for concessions in terms of both pay and benefits. I live in apple growing country. I support the workers who harvest the fruit and those who process it. You should too. A good place to start is at nobadapples.org. In an area that was economically depressed prior to the even harder times of the past two years the Mott's workers need your solidarity.

May Day 2010

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.
Photograph © AP/Frank Franklin II.

And while we are on the topic of May Day ... There are a couple of reasons to call attention to Rich Trumka. He is now President of the AFL-CIO, but before that he was leader of the United Mine Workers. It has been a bad year for miners. And it is only May.

Beyond that, I think Trumka is an extremely admirable man. A couple of years back, he gave what may well be the most remarkable speech on race in American politics since Martin Luther King, Jr.; like King, Trumka links the defense of minority rights to the struggle of labor in America. And he speaks frankly. This picture of Trumka is from a union sponsored rally this past week on Wall Street.

May Day & the Right Not to Work

It is May Day and I wanted to note the (largely ignored) holiday, traditionally an important component in the struggle for workers' rights. In particular it is central to the struggle for the right not to work all the time.

Some Reasons Why Robust Unions Are Important Right Now

An organizer for United Cannery, Agricultural Packing and
Allied Workers of America talks to a nighttime street meeting
at outside Shafter, California. Dorothea Lange/Library of Congress.

I came across this image today. Unions are not a panacea. But robust unions go some way to protecting people. They can afford some protection from rapacious employers who simply don't care that shortcuts they take are deadly. They can protect them from government regulators who (as Alan Greenspan did this week*) excuse their own failings and brag about an essentially 'C-' performance on the job. And unions might put some starch into the collars of politicians like Obama who, offered an opportunity to resist the consistent and extreme rightward shift in the Supreme Court over the past four decades, seems to be heading toward more accommodation with the conservatives. We need unions.
__________

* "I was wrong 30 per cent of the time, and there were an awful lot of mistakes in 21 years." ~ Alan Greenspan, April 2010. As a devoted disciple of Ayn Rand, Greenspan surely would accept no curve on his grade - that would require him to expect altruism - and in my book, 70% is a solid C-.

Democrats Shoot Selves in Foot, Screw Unions Again

My friend and companion Susan sent me this column by Harold Meyerson at The Washington Post. Meyerson seems just right regarding the broad political and economic consequences of the demise of unions. The Democrats - wittingly or witlessly - have more or less orchestrated that demise. It is not that the unions are blameless. But the legal environment in which they operate is structured to the advantage of employers in a stark way. And that is a state of affairs that the Democrats repeatedly have failed to remedy. They always have some other priority.

So, as Meyerson notes, the problem is not just that Obama's first year "has been close to an unmitigated disaster" for organized labor, most especially because the chances of passing even a compromise version of the Employee Free Choice Act have evaporated due the administration's political incompetence. The problem is that this is like groundhog day. Meyerson points out that "this marks the fourth time in the past half-century that labor's efforts to strengthen workers' ability to organize have been deferred by the Democratic presidents and the heavily Democratic Congresses they supported." Maybe the unions need a new political strategy?

I am sure some readers will write in to suggest that unions are bad for economic performance . . . blah, blah, blah. Let's just recall that the truly nasty, unjustifiable mal-distribution of wealth and income in the U.S., to say nothing of the deregulation that generated our recent financial meltdown, have been generated - indeed accelerated - during decades of marked union decline. I don't know if there is a causal story there, but the correlation is inverse. What we know is that absent strong unions the S*!T has hit the fan in economic terms.